I honestly think there is no such thing as a de facto "homosexual person." I only believe there are confused people that fall for such temptations and are driven to believe themselves as homo. There are those that claim it is genetic- they will never find their "gay gene."

Even if someone is homosexual because of experience or whatever else rather than genes, it doesn't change the fact that they are a "homosexual person". It seems to me that there's (in general) a difference between male and female homosexuality. It seems like male homosexuals are more likely to be just homosexual rather than bisexual, and that men are more likely to feel as if they've always been homosexual and that it has nothing to do with specific experiences, whereas a higher number of female homosexuals seem to feel that there are certain things that happened to them that influenced them in that direction. Although I'm a little reticent to speak about it, I have my own experience with one common scenario. I was badly abused by an old boyfriend for a period of about two years, which naturally cause a lot of psychological damage, including an instinctive fear of men in general. A lesbian friend of mine was an immense help to me in the aftermath, and things just developed from there. Of course, when I became Orthodox I got away from that, and in the time since I've recovered a lot from the issues I mentioned. So you probably could have called me "confused" or whatever at the time, but if you were doing it condescendingly, you would have done me a lot more harm than good. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a good bit of compassion can do a lot of good in these situations, because situations involving homosexuality are usually enormously painful already. I think if most homosexuals could just snap their fingers and become "normal" they would. But of course the real situation is a lot more intimidating than that.

Logged

Let me love myself only if I love thee and do all things for thy sake.

How to argue against "pro-gay"... Clarify that it is not the "state" of being homosexual that is the sin it is the "act" of homosexual sex that is the sin. The pro gay side needs to understand that you are not going to send your 700 club cronies out to lynch thier gay brethern. Parallel the act of gay sex to premarital sex. A sin is a sin is a sin.

Here's my 2 cents on the gay issue.

My sister is gay. Which is enough to make me unpopular amongst most conservative christians. Yes, I struggle knowing that my sister is going straight into the pit. The only thing I can do for her is pray. I love her regardless of her sexuallity and the sexual acts she commits. I think everyone one of has friends, relatives and associates that are sinners.

I'm sorry to say, that until one has a gay relative you really don't understand what homosexuality is like (unless you are gay yourself). There are lots of ignorant stereotypes of gays and lesbians. For example, Homosexual does not equal pedophile. Pedophiles LIKE CHILDREN. Gays are not out to recruit straight people to thier lifestyle. As a matter of fact, most don't want anything to do with the words "conservative" and "christian". Use them in a sentence is enough to send them running and screaming the other way. Not all gay men are hairdressers, florists or act effiminate. Not all lesbians have short hair and listen to Melissa Etheridge. If I were to show you a picture of my sister, I'm willing to wager my life savings that not a single person on this message board would ever guess that my sister is a lesbian.

At this point in time NOBODY knows what the exact cause of homosexuality is. There is not enough scienctific evidence to prove if it indeed the environment or genetics that cause homosexuality. Speaking from experience, if being gay were to come from the environment. I would be gay too, according to that guy who thinks Tinkee Winkee is gay. My sister and I were raised by the same crappy father and emotionally immature mother. Funny thing is, I'm straight and happily married. Hmm, I don't think the environment caused her to be gay? Could it be there are some biological reason why my sister is the way she is?

, whereas a higher number of female homosexuals seem to feel that there are certain things that happened to them that influenced them in that direction. Although I'm a little reticent to speak about it, I have my own experience with one common scenario. I was badly abused by an old boyfriend for a period of about two years, which naturally cause a lot of psychological damage, including an instinctive fear of men in general. A lesbian friend of mine was an immense help to me in the aftermath, and things just developed from there. Of course, when I became Orthodox I got away from that, and in the time since I've recovered a lot from the issues I mentioned. So you probably could have called me "confused" or whatever at the time, but if you were doing it condescendingly, you would have done me a lot more harm than good. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a good bit of compassion can do a lot of good in these situations, because situations involving homosexuality are usually enormously painful already. I think if most homosexuals could just snap their fingers and become "normal" they would. But of course the real situation is a lot more intimidating than that.

Penelope,

It was VERY brave of you to tell of your personal experiences and thank you for your call for greater compassion! But I do know many lesbians who were NEVER abused and NEVER treated badly by former boyfriends but do feel like they have been gay all their lives.

Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

I think if most homosexuals could just snap their fingers and become "normal" they would. But of course the real situation is a lot more intimidating than that.

Thank you for sharing your experience Penelope, yes I firmly agree that there should be more compassion for gays and lesbians. I isolated the quote above because it jumped out at me. As I mentioned in my reply (#48) My sister is gay. We have had the "what if you could take a magic pill and become straight" conversation. She said she would take it in a heartbeat. I don't think she is alone in thinking that, as when it comes down to it gay people don't WANT to be gay.

We have had the "what if you could take a magic pill and become straight" conversation. She said she would take it in a heartbeat. I don't think she is alone in thinking that, as when it comes down to it gay people don't WANT to be gay.

That is a very baffling concept to me. I would dare say that since homosexuality is a temptation rather than an innate attraction (i.e. biological) that the instant-fix-pill statement is more of a sign of resignation to the sin than a resolve to battle. It's like a smoker saying, 'Yeah, if I could give up smoking right now I would,' and then he/she walks outside and lights up right after. It means nothing to have a desire to change without the struggle. It is weakness. I could understand if someone was athiest or of a liberal belief-system, but for an Orthodox Christian it's a whole other story. Forgive me, but I still have a hard time believing homosexuality to be biological or uncontrollable.

It's like a smoker saying, 'Yeah, if I could give up smoking right now I would,' and then he/she walks outside and lights up right after. It means nothing to have a desire to change without the struggle. It is weakness. I could understand if someone was athiest or of a liberal belief-system, but for an Orthodox Christian it's a whole other story. Forgive me, but I still have a hard time believing homosexuality to be biological or uncontrollable.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The smoking analogy is a very poor one.

First and foremost, smoking (up until the last 5-10) years was socially acceptable. Furthermore, smokers have never had evangelical Christians chasing them around the country condemning them to hell at every turn.

It has been a lot easier to be a smoker in our society than it has been to be a homosexual. Up until recently, the incentive to quit smoking has been miniscule (remember all the Tobaco execs denying that smoking caused Cancer at the congressional hearings???)

A person who didn't quit have never faced being treated as a societal pariah... as homosexuals are treated.

The incentive for homosexuals to "quit" is enormous. Forget about the religious implications for a second (and the questions regarding salvation), but look to the earthly implications first. If they could just "quit" being homosexual, they could enter the mainstream of society. They would be accepted as "normal".

Talk about a huge incentive to "quit", yet people such as PZ's sister are not "quitting". That tells me that it might be a lot more than personal weakness.

Listen, I'm far from an authority on this (I'm not even sure what my opinion is), it just doesn't seem to make sense to me, that someone could just "quit" being homosexual. I suppose they could be celibate, but does that mean they are no longer homosexual?

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The smoking analogy is a very poor one.

I used smoking because it is a non-biological self-detrimental addiction, in which case is identical to homosexuality.

Quote

A person who didn't quit have never faced being treated as a societal pariah... as homosexuals are treated.

The societal pariah against homosexuality is a natural reaction to something unnatural. I am not speaking on behalf of hateful treatment towards gays, but rather society's negative conception of homosexuality.

Quote

The incentive for homosexuals to "quit" is enormous. Forget about the religious implications for a second (and the questions regarding salvation), but look to the earthly implications first. If they could just "quit" being homosexual, they could enter the mainstream of society. They would be accepted as "normal".

This, being an Orthodox Christian board, our collective ideal on such matters should be clear. The outside world, those that are not familiar with our church or what it means to be Orthodox, have a skewed understanding of truth and matters of right and wrong. There is no "right and wrong" for people any longer. The ACLU, feminists, and other liberal organizations keep feeding society rubbish that develops into a large gray mass for what is right or wrong. Things are not as clear cut as they used to be for society, but in Orthodoxy, we never change regardless of how the world changes.

Quote

Talk about a huge incentive to "quit", yet people such as PZ's sister are not "quitting". That tells me that it might be a lot more than personal weakness.

On the contrary, people now understand the implications of smoking quite cleary. The tobacco industry now is unabashedly telling youth and adults alike that it is an unhealthy carcinogenic habit. Why do we still see smokers smoking and new ones created? It's "the cool thing to do" with youth, and it's an uphill battle for veteran smokers with nicotene. This same scenario can be applied to homosexuality. Some youths may see it as a sort of modern counter-culture fad that is cool to be a part of, while the veteran gays may be caught in the web of addictive lust. Personal weakness maybe be just it, and by that I mean, the unwillingness of the individual to combat his or her tempatations. I say this with all due respect to PZ.

The societal pariah against homosexuality is a natural reaction to something unnatural. I am not speaking on behalf of hateful treatment towards gays, but rather society's negative conception of homosexuality.

This, being an Orthodox Christian board, our collective ideal on such matters should be clear. The outside world, those that are not familiar with our church or what it means to be Orthodox, have a skewed understanding of truth and matters of right and wrong. There is no "right and wrong" for people any longer. The ACLU, feminists, and other liberal organizations keep feeding society rubbish that develops into a large gray mass for what is right or wrong. Things are not as clear cut as they used to be for society, but in Orthodoxy, we never change regardless of how the world changes.

I think without question the Orthodox view of homosexual acts is clear. I don't think that was the point of what I was saying. My point was (and still is) that the smoking analogy isn't a good one.

On the contrary, people now understand the implications of smoking quite cleary. The tobacco industry now is unabashedly telling youth and adults alike that it is an unhealthy carcinogenic habit. Why do we still see smokers smoking and new ones created? It's "the cool thing to do" with youth, and it's an uphill battle for veteran smokers with nicotene. This same scenario can be applied to homosexuality. Some youths may see it as a sort of modern counter-culture fad that is cool to be a part of, while the veteran gays may be caught in the web of addictive lust. Personal weakness maybe be just it, and by that I mean, the unwillingness of the individual to combat his or her tempatations. I say this with all due respect to PZ.

I disagree. Smoking rates are on the huge decline (as a percentage of total population). Once people started to truly realize how deadly smoking was, people started to quit. Furthermore, the social stiigma attached to smoking/smokers increases everyday, and with it, the amount of smokers declines.

Societal pressures are reducing the amount of smokers, but societal pressures have NO effect on homosexuality. To me, that signifies a distinct difference. You think the connection between the two is clear, I don't.

One thing I should have known from the beginning- not to argue with a lawyer

At any rate,

Quote

I disagree. Smoking rates are on the huge decline (as a percentage of total population). Once people started to truly realize how deadly smoking was, people started to quit. Furthermore, the social stiigma attached to smoking/smokers increases everyday, and with it, the amount of smokers declines.

I disagree on account that smoking has a negative effect on one's physical body, as opposed to homosexuality negative effect on the soul (the physical negativities to homosexuality can be applied to those of heterosexuality, making it an invalid argument). Therefore, due to the more immediate threat to one's well-being, smoking has been on the decline. People can see the negative effects of smoking. They cannot see the negative eternal effects of homosexuality, and are willing to risk mere social stigma (if it's even applicable in their area) for the indulgence of the sin. You go to places like Boston or Key West, it's more accepted than other scenes.

Quote

But when I talk to an ACLU member who tells me it is his dream to wipe out all poverty, hunger and homelessness, they look pretty darn good to me.

The goal may be a noble one, but if it's at the sacrifice of a free market system, then it's not worth it. Those liberal groups tend to have socialist agendas, and who wants that? There are plenty of working organizations in our society for those in need.

That is a very baffling concept to me. I would dare say that since homosexuality is a temptation rather than an innate attraction (i.e. biological) that the instant-fix-pill statement is more of a sign of resignation to the sin than a resolve to battle. It's like a smoker saying, 'Yeah, if I could give up smoking right now I would,' and then he/she walks outside and lights up right after. It means nothing to have a desire to change without the struggle. It is weakness. I could understand if someone was athiest or of a liberal belief-system, but for an Orthodox Christian it's a whole other story. Forgive me, but I still have a hard time believing homosexuality to be biological or uncontrollable.

Let me ask you this... Would you choose to live a "lifestyle" in which you would live in fear of someone beating you up, getting fired from your job or being chased out of town because of a certain "impulse" you have. Yes, Gays have lots of incentives to "quit".

The goal may be a noble one, but if it's at the sacrifice of a free market system, then it's not worth it. Those liberal groups tend to have socialist agendas, and who wants that?

I couldn't disagree more, on moral, philosophical and religious grounds. "Liberal groups", "socialist agenda", those are just catch phrases created to entice the lowest common denominator. I've never understood why the right and left always have to be mutually exclusive.

ie- Why can't you have a strong social conscience and a good moral fabric at the same time?

I couldn't disagree more, on moral, philosophical and religious grounds. "Liberal groups", "socialist agenda", those are just catch phrases created to entice the lowest common denominator. I've never understood why the right and left always have to be mutually exclusive.

ie- Why can't you have a strong social conscience and a good moral fabric at the same time?

Heheh, you guys are hilarious. I concede to Serb that indeed, it is possible for someone to combine "good moral fabric" and a "strong social conscience." No hard feelings.

Quote

Let me ask you this... Would you choose to live a "lifestyle" in which you would live in fear of someone beating you up, getting fired from your job or being chased out of town because of a certain "impulse" you have. Yes, Gays have lots of incentives to "quit".

Let's be honest- how often does any of that really happen? We're not living in dem olden days no more, hon. If it ever does, they've got the ACLU.

It's also geographical re: whether it is socially dangerous or unbearable to be a homosexual. In the Northeast (where I live), unless you are a middle schooler, there is very little stigma. In the South, there's probably a lot more.

Marjorie

« Last Edit: February 26, 2005, 09:53:54 PM by Marjorie »

Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

Homophobia is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon. Heorhji, in purely Darwinistic terms, homosexuality as we know it today is a guaranteed dead end for the the simple reason that same-sex couples can't procreate. I realize homosexuality was widespread way back when, but it's not them I'm talking about.

How is it known today that is so different from how we knew it 'way back when'? I think the definition is pretty straight forward (how punny!) and simple- people of the same sex are attracted to one another.

Homophobia is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon. Heorhji, in purely Darwinistic terms, homosexuality as we know it today is a guaranteed dead end for the the simple reason that same-sex couples can't procreate. I realize homosexuality was widespread way back when, but it's not them I'm talking about.

Homosexuals constitute a small minority (perhaps more than 1% of us but definitely not more than 10%), so it really does not matter at all whether they procreate or not.

it is Truth unadulterated by observation, subjectivity, or superstition.

Quid est veritas?

ars mathematica veritas est!

You are such a nerd.. but then again so am I.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

it is Truth unadulterated by observation, subjectivity, or superstition.

Quid est veritas?

ars mathematica veritas est!

You need to get out more often (not on account of the Latin, but of the statement)!

Agreed.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

“there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.”

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/228------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Find one study that conclusively proves that minute brain differences in the hypothalamus, midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, suprachiasmatic nucleus, and/or the gay gene cause homosexuality. (Remember that LeVay’s studies, identifying minute brain changes in homosexuals, was discovered after postmortem exams of AIDS patients, very possibly prescribed immune therapies and antiviral meds. (The CARE Act was enacted in 1990 to help poor and uninsured individuals with HIV/AIDS get primary care, support services and life-sustaining medications.)-----------------------------------------------------------

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."quote from Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122. (LeVay is the neuroanatomist who compiled the research that is frequently quoted to support the non-proven theory that homosexuality has a biological origin.)

With regard to the topic question. From experience I would say that many Christians are quite pro-Jewish; Christian Zionists in particular. As for Christians being homophobic... While many attempt to cover their contempt for gays and lesbians with "hate the sin not the sinner" slogans, I believe - again from experience - that homophobia is still present in an awful lot of Christian circles; especially amongst fundamentalist thinkers.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

“there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.”

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/228------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Find one study that conclusively proves that minute brain differences in the hypothalamus, midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, suprachiasmatic nucleus, and/or the gay gene cause homosexuality. (Remember that LeVay’s studies, identifying minute brain changes in homosexuals, was discovered after postmortem exams of AIDS patients, very possibly prescribed immune therapies and antiviral meds. (The CARE Act was enacted in 1990 to help poor and uninsured individuals with HIV/AIDS get primary care, support services and life-sustaining medications.)-----------------------------------------------------------

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."quote from Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122. (LeVay is the neuroanatomist who compiled the research that is frequently quoted to support the non-proven theory that homosexuality has a biological origin.)

So much for progress.

Have you considered a phenotypical approach? Several twin studies have demonstrated a substantially higher correlation of sexuality between twins, even twins separated at birth, both monozygotic and dizygotic than between non-twin siblings or adoptive siblings. What's your explanation for these studies? The most sensible theory tends to be related to hormone levels during gestation. Granted, most these studies have focused on men; but, from personal experience I would argue that non-bisexual women are just sexually repressed, I can't count the number of times I've seen women who would claim to be 'grossed out' by the idea sober making out with their girlfriends after a couple drinks, not exactly something you see with men...not quite scientific research, but a rather common, reoccurring observation.

The problem is that people do not differentiate between Christians (those coming from Apostolic Churches) and Protestants.

"Christian Zionists" are Protestants, Evangelicals, rejecters of the Apostolic faith. There's nothing as incompatible with Christianity as is Judaism. Judaism is the explicit rejection of Christ, whom we regard as Saviour and God.

It's not about Anti-Semitism. Jews are witnesses of Christ, we can't separate Christ from Judaism but at the same time Christ and Judaism are opposed to each other. We all know that as Christians it's forbidden for us to hate people because of their race. However, Judaism (and therefore Naturalism, Protestantism, Freemasonry, Secularism, Liberalism) must be rejected because of its instrinsic opposition to Christianity and the Christian nations.

There's a very good book about this, written by a Roman priest Fr. Julio Meinvielle "The Jew in the Mystery of History". I don't know if there's an English version available. There's a version in Romanian and another one in Spanish.

"Archbishop Saliba was equally outspoken about events in the Middle East. He rejected terrorism, by Israelis or Palestinians, out of hand. But he made it clear that Orthodox Christianity also rejects the doctrine of 20th century Zionism, supported by a segment of modern evangelical Protestantism, that the people of Israel are destined to return to the Holy Land. Instead it accepts the traditional Christian view that the Christian Church is the New Israel.

Metropolitan Philip is comfortable with explaining why this is so, and in supporting the contention of the Christians of the Middle East that there is no biblical justification for the suffering and displacement that the Zionists of Israel have inflicted upon them. One of Metropolitan Philip's most familiar comments is that "God is no longer in the real estate business." He also has said, "My plea is that modern Protestant theologians and students of Scripture take a critical and objective look at how the Church has interpreted the Bible throughout history."

"On May 14, 1948, thirty-eight people gathered in Tel Aviv to establish the modern state of Israel. The establishment of this state provided a cause of great rejoicing for the Jews who had waited and prayed for an opportunity to return to a land they believed rightfully belonged to them. For the Palestinian residents already living in this land as they had for centuries, the news was thebeginning of yet a new chapter in a history filled with tragedy, oppression, and struggle. Even before that fateful day, war and bloodshed had already begun to curse the Middle East as two peoples fought for control of the same land. "

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

“there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.”

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/228------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Find one study that conclusively proves that minute brain differences in the hypothalamus, midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, suprachiasmatic nucleus, and/or the gay gene cause homosexuality. (Remember that LeVay’s studies, identifying minute brain changes in homosexuals, was discovered after postmortem exams of AIDS patients, very possibly prescribed immune therapies and antiviral meds. (The CARE Act was enacted in 1990 to help poor and uninsured individuals with HIV/AIDS get primary care, support services and life-sustaining medications.)-----------------------------------------------------------

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."quote from Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122. (LeVay is the neuroanatomist who compiled the research that is frequently quoted to support the non-proven theory that homosexuality has a biological origin.)

So much for progress.

Have you considered a phenotypical approach? Several twin studies have demonstrated a substantially higher correlation of sexuality between twins, even twins separated at birth, both monozygotic and dizygotic than between non-twin siblings or adoptive siblings. What's your explanation for these studies? The most sensible theory tends to be related to hormone levels during gestation. Granted, most these studies have focused on men; but, from personal experience I would argue that non-bisexual women are just sexually repressed, I can't count the number of times I've seen women who would claim to be 'grossed out' by the idea sober making out with their girlfriends after a couple drinks, not exactly something you see with men...not quite scientific research, but a rather common, reoccurring observation.

LeVay, S. & Hamer, D. H. (1994). Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality. Scientific American, 50- 55.LeVay and Hamer investigated and found two biological components for male homosexuality. LeVay's study consists of the human brain whereas, Hamer's is linked to genetics. LeVay's studied the INAH 3 and suggest that this region is smaller in gay men. Hamer studied gay twins and found that their X chromosome is inherited by the mother. Hamer's findings are quite interesting, but he did not study heterosexual brothers to see if they also inherited the mother's X chromosome was not explored........OOOOPSEY!

Bailey & Pillard: Twins and Other BrothersBailey and Pillard studied pairs of brothers -- identical twins, non-identical twins, other biological brothers, and adoptive brothers -- where at least one was gay. At first glance, their findings looked like a pattern for homosexuality being genetically influenced. Identical twins were both homosexual 52% of the time; non-identical twins, 22%; other biological brothers, 9.2%; and adoptive brothers, 10.5%. A closer look reveals significant problems with a "born gay" conclusion to this study: • "In order for such a study to be meaningful, you'd have to look at twins raised apart," says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist. The brothers in this study were raised together in their families. • All the results were different from what one would expect if homosexuality was directly genetic: ◦ Because identical twin brothers share 100% of their genes overall, we would expect that if one was homosexual, the other would also be homosexual, 100% of the time. Instead, this study found that they were both homosexual only 52% of the time. ◦ Although completely unrelated genetically, adoptive brothers were more likely to both be gay than the biological brothers, who share half their genes! This piece of data prompted the journal Science to respond: "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Vol. 262 Dec.24, 1993). ◦ If homosexuality were genetic, one would expect each number in the column "Results from the B & P study" to be identical to the corresponding number in the "Expectation if genetic" column. Each one is significantly different!